Programs

A new political paradigm

ROBERT JOHNSON asked: This morning, bookmakers’ odds predicted an election before the 31st December, 2011. What's your bet, and why?What do you think?

ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT

BILL KRIKETOS asked: To Tanya Plibersek: Why, when seats were 72/73 to the Coalition and the Labor primary vote was at 38% didn't Julia Gillard do the honourable thing and resign from care taker, and let the people decide?What do you think?

LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT

BRAD HARVEY asked: There has been a lot of noise in the media from people such as Joe Hockey that the Labor/Green alliance is an illegitimate Government. I’m keen to know which laws have been broken in the formation of the Gillard Government for it to be branded illegitimate and why it is that the Liberals and Nationals seem to think they hold the monopoly on forming coalition governments?What do you think?

COALITION / WRECKERS

FRANK ALVARO asked: It is probably fair to assume that the Australian public now expects a degree of stability in the Federal Parliament. Mr Truss, what guarantee can the Coalition give that they will not simply become a wrecking crew in suits, determined to disrupt and frustrate good government, with the aim of forcing a new election?What do you think?

NATS / ACHIEVEMENTS

LIZ THORP asked: Given that the 3 independents have been able to do more for regional and rural Australia in 17 days then the National Party have been able to do in 17 years, will you consider voting on issues that are good for regional Australia but may go against the views of the very city focused Liberal Party, such as climate change, water sharing, and the NBN just to name a few?What do you think?

CO-OPERATIVE POLITICS

JONATHAN DAVEY asked: Could you imagine any circumstance where the Greens, Coalition and independents could work together to pass legislation through the House of Reps. and the Senate without Government support?What do you think?

MINING TAX

TODD HILLSLEY asked: My question is to Clive Palmer: The mining tax will boost the retirement savings of workers, lower business tax and also contribute to national infrastructure. With the main mining unions also supporting this tax and a record numbers of mining magnates in this year BRW top 200 list, is your opposition to the tax just serving your own self interest and not the country's or even the mining industry’s?What do you think?

-MINING TAX - WHAT'S FAIR?

BARBARA CLARKE asked: What tax level or tax system does the mining industry feel is fair and equitable, so that miners and their stakeholders receive a healthy return for their investment and Australian society is compensated for the depletion of non renewable resources?What do you think?

SOVERIGN WEALTH

ASHLEY BORG asked: Everyone knows that mining doesn't last forever. Minerals are non-renewable resources. Don't we need a Mining Resource Rent Tax linked to a Sovereign Wealth Fund so that we build a pool of financial resources for the Australian people, that continues to produce benefits when the minerals are long gone?What do you think?

WHAT HAS LABOR LEARNT?

MATTHEW NOBLE asked: This was a campaign where we saw a huge swing against Labor after what has been described by pollster Rod Cameron as “the worst federal campaign” he had ever seen. My question is to Tanya Plibersek: without blaming the opposition or previous leadership, what have you learnt from the Australian public about your own failings as a party this election cycle?What do you think?

Okay. Q&A is live from 9.35 Easter Time and you can send your questions now by SMS to 197 55 222 or via our website, abc.net.au/qanda, and join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag on your screen.

Well, it's the start of a new political era. After two months of campaigning and wrangling, we have our first minority government in 70 years and a host of unanswered questions. Let's go to our first one tonight. It comes from Robert Johnson.

ROBERT JOHNSON: This morning, bookmakers’ odds predicted an election before the end of 2011. What's your bet, and why?

LENORE TAYLOR: I wouldn't agree with that for the reason that although this new government we've got is fragile, the self interest of most of the people in it is to keep it going and there's enough consensus between them on enough of the major issues that I think it will last longer than that. I'm not saying it's going to last a full term, but I think a bit longer than that.

TONY JONES: Warren Truss, what's your bet?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, I think the government is tenuous. I think that it will not be able to be too adventurous. We may, therefore, have a rather dull and boring parliament instead of the exciting one that perhaps some people are expecting but I agree with Lenore that there are a lot of people there, particularly the independents who haven't been relevant for 70 years and so they're going to want to make this moment last. I think they, in particular, are going to be keen to make the compromises that are necessary to try and keep the government together but in the end we've really got to remember about what's best for our country and there will have to be some important decisions made and eventually frustration may overtake the will to be as cooperative as possible.

TONY JONES: Do you see any issues on the horizon which could pull apart the new paradigm?

WARREN TRUSS: There are a score. There are a score that could pull it apart. There are some very important issues but others that are simply going to have to be put aside because consensus can't be reached and eventually decisions are going to have to be made and I think that's when the problems will arise.

TONY JONES: Tanya Plibersek, what do you think about the bookmaker's assessment: a new election by the end of next year?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, I don't know that I would place a lot of faith in the bookmaker's assessment. Certainly we are keen, as a government, to serve a full term. I think it's going to be an interesting term. We're going to have to learn to work differently. We're going to have to make sure that we're consulting the independents and the cross benchers from a very early stage in the development of policy and legislation and I think that that may well have a very positive effect on democracy and, in fact, probably some of the worst decisions that the previous Howard Government made was when they had full control of the House of Representatives and the Senate and didn't need to talk to anyone and introduced work choices and really went too far with that. So I think we'll serve a full term but it will be a very different style of government.

TONY JONES: Clive Palmer?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I think the bookmakers are right, Tony, because we've already seen already the Tony Windsor situation where Tony was promised there'd be a tax review before the mining tax would be introduced and what's happened? The government has not even had one day in parliament and the Labor Party has reneged on that promise and Wayne Swan says he's going to push through the mining tax, regardless of any review. Of course, that's what Labor's like.

TONY JONES: Has he actually said that? I thought he said he was relaxed about it being part of the review?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I don't think so. I think you'll see Labor trying to push their agenda through now they've got the independent support. Let's see what happens.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: What he actually said - Tony Windsor agreed that he had misunderstood. He said that clearly and publicly and Wayne Swan has subsequently said that he's happy for this to be part of the discussions but that we are committed to a resources rent tax. We're talking about 10 and a half billion dollars raised in the first couple of years, we estimate. That will be spent on superannuation, on tax cuts, on simplifying people's super, on investment in the...

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to hear a lot more about the mining tax during the course of the show. I'll cut you off there because we...

CLIVE PALMER: I'll go with the bookmaker anyway.

TONY JONES: You'll go with the bookmaker. Sarah Hanson-Young what do you think?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I'm a little more optimistic, I guess, than the bookies out there. I think enough people have actually put themselves on the line to make this work for the next three years and I'd like to make sure that we do get a full term of government. I think that's what the country has asked us to do. I know it's not easy but we're being challenged: change the ways we operate; work together; be constructive, not wreckers; and roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

TONY JONES: Okay. Let's go to our next question tonight. We'll move on straight away. I'll let a smattering of applause happen for you and then we'll go on to Bill Kriketos.

BILL KRIKETOS: This is to Tanya Plibersek. Why, when seats were 72/73 to the Coalition and the Labor primary vote was at 38%, didn't Julia Gillard do the honourable thing and resign from caretaker, and let the people decide?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, it's just not right that seats were 72/73. They were 72/72 and in that situation the party that can form government with the support of independents and minor parties is duty bound to do that.

BILL KRIKETOS: But the fellow from Western Australia, he said he'll come over to the Coalition so...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: He's sitting on the cross benches and he is able - well, he is sitting on the cross benches and he's been very clear about the fact that he doesn't want to be taken for granted by the National Party because he understands that the Nationals had 12 years to deliver for the bush when they were in government and they weren't able to so he doesn't want to be tarred with that same brush. He wants to be treated as an independent. He has subsequently said he will sit with the National Party on a number of important decisions but equally the Green candidate member for Melbourne has said that he will support us in a number of key issues. It then came down to the independents. With 72 each/72 each, one National went that one, one Green went our way. It was the independents. I think that's a very clear ability to form government.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Clive Palmer on this. I'm sure you were watching the numbers very closely, as all of Australia was.

CLIVE PALMER: Sure. Well, I really think people who voted in Western Australia in that seat against Wilson Tuckey were voting for the Coalition. If you vote National or your vote Liberal, you're not voting Labor and it was clear that the seats were - you know Tony Abbott did get the most votes and most seats and should have formed a government.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, no, hang on a sec.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: But he didn't have support of the other numbers that he needed to get over the line.

CLIVE PALMER: Well, the question was at that stage should the Prime Minister have resigned? I'm saying yes.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: If they wanted to vote for the Coalition, they could have voted for the sitting Coalition member. They didn't do that.

CLIVE PALMER: That wasn't the question. The question was should she have resigned, and I'm saying yes. Yes.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah, but you would say that.

CLIVE PALMER: Most definitely yes.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Clive, you would say that if we won 90 or 100 seats out of 150, you know.

CLIVE PALMER: Well, she should definitely resign.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson-Young, you came in earlier but I'll give you a chance to respond to that.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Look, the reality is Tony Abbott was not able to negotiate to get the extra numbers that he needs. You can't form government on 73. He can't form government on 74. You actually need 76 or more and he wasn't able to convince enough people to come over to his side. You know I guess the issue, though, it's not winner takes all from anyone and things are going to change. There's going to be some policies by which the Greens are not able to support the government on. There'll be some things that we can negotiate on. It's going to be a very interesting three years.

TONY JONES: Okay. We've got a similar question. I'm going to go to Brad Harvey before I bring in the other panellists.

BRAD HARVEY: There's been a lot of noise in the media lately from people like Joe Hockey that perhaps the so called Labor/Green alliance is an illegitimate government. Given that that carries a legal connotation, I'm keen to understand which laws have been broken for the Gillard Government to be branded illegitimate and is it perhaps sour grapes that the Liberals and Nationals seem to think they have a monopoly on forming coalition governments?

TONY JONES: Warren Truss?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, our concerns about the Labor Green Alliance are the policy mix that that brings to the government. Clearly the Greens have quite extreme policies in a whole range of areas and they're going to expect their pound of flesh for this alliance and I think that will be bad news not just for the mining industry. It will bad news for farmers. It will be bad news for business. We'll be headed for a whole range of higher taxes, a whole range of new measures that the Greens have got on their agenda which will be bad for the National economy and Labor can only govern with these Greens in its pocket and for that reason I'm quite concerned about the fact that there is going to be a Green and Labor alliance and that the Greens will have a significant influence in the policy decisions of the new government.

TONY JONES: Fair enough. But the question went to the legitimacy of the government. Your shadow attorney-general, George Brandis, said the government has got as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team. That's the shadow attorney-general, by the way, who presumably knows the constitution. Is there an issue - a constitutional issue - suggesting illegitimacy?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, I think that when the Coalition went to the people we were up front about the alliances that we would have in place. Labor didn't tell us that they were going to do deals with Greens and others at the end of the day and so perhaps the Greens got away without proper scrutiny of some of their policies which may now potentially be implemented because they're a part of an alliance. So the government has been sworn in. They are therefore a government. They will have to be tested on the floor of the house and it will be our job to test them thoroughly and consistently but fairly over the years ahead.

TONY JONES: Lenore Taylor?

LENORE TAYLOR: Well, I think Brad is absolutely right. No law has been broken. We teach our kids that you can't change the rules just because you lose. The rules say that if you can win the support of the parliament you form the government. Well, Julia Gillard did. Tony Abbott didn't. So Julia Gillard is the prime minister. They're the rules and, you know, this kind of sour grapes afterwards saying that it's illegitimate because of some readings of the two party preferred vote before it went back Labor's way or the primary vote or whatever you take to be the position of the Western Australian independent or whatever. That's all beside the point. The rules are the rules and under those rules Julia Gillard won, like it or not.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: And I think the other thing to say - I think the other thing to say is if it had gone the other way - if the Greens and independents had decided to support Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott wouldn't be saying, "Well, I'm not sure that this is a legitimate coalition." One party or the other had to work with the people on the cross benches. One party or the other was going to form government and it's irrational in the extreme to say, "If we do it it's fine, but if you do it it's illegitimate."

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Clive Palmer on this. Do you regard the Gillard Government as a legitimate government?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, there was a time in Australia when the Labor Party would never think of going into coalition with anyone. They were the one party in Australia that was either going to be the government or be the opposition regardless, and that was the principles they laid out in elections all through the 1970s, '80s and '90s. So I don't think the Australian people really imagined there would be a situation where the Labor Party would go into Coalition with five parties, which is what they've done now. There's the Labor Party, three independents and one Green. So that's not the sort of Labor Party and I think it's the beginning were we see the Labor Party slip from support of the Australian people down to a minority socialist party like they have in Europe at the moment: down to 30 per cent. Now, you've got to remember that the premier of Queensland only has a current approval rating of 29 per cent so, you know, the Greens are going to play a much bigger role in Australian politics and become a much more mainstream party to the cost of the Labor Party. That's for sure.

TONY JONES: I imagine Sarah Hanson-Young is actually cheering at that prospect.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I like the fact that Clive Palmer has just suggested that the Greens are a mainstream party, because that was probably going to be my response to Warren Truss. You know, the idea that simply because the Greens didn't choose the Coalition and that makes us extreme...

WARREN TRUSS: Well, we didn't really ever expect you would.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, maybe that's because you have to look at your policies and, you know, how irrational some of them are. The idea that you can simply - the idea that you can simply lose $11 billion down the back of the couch and, oops, sorry, we thought we'd tell you after we got elected...

WARREN TRUSS: Oh, that's rubbish.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You know, I think in terms of scrutiny - in terms of scrutiny of policies, I think the coalition have some wounds to lick.

TONY JONES: I think, you know, fairness dictates you should get a chance to respond to that.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, you're referring to the Treasury's estimates of what some of our policies were going to cost. We had them independently costed by authorities that understand accounting and no how the numbers add up. I think the day...

TONY JONES: So do you mean as opposed...

WARREN TRUSS: I think...

TONY JONES: You mean as opposed to the Treasury?

WARREN TRUSS: I think it's about time that people recognised the fact that the Treasury gets it wrong just as often as everybody else. In fact, they get it wrong so often that departments spend most of their time in the preparation of a budget arguing with Treasury about what the costings should be and they even have...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: But there is a...

WARREN TRUSS: ...a reserve - a conservative bias reserve to make up to fund the mistakes that they make. So Treasury is an important provider of information but they don't always get it right. In fact, they frequently get it wrong and I will guarantee you that in five years time when the main calculation is actually there to see in relation to what the interest rates are going to be over the next five years we got it a lot closer to right than what Treasury did.

LENORE TAYLOR: But, Warren, if you're so concerned about that, how come the Coalition proposed to spend the reserve?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, because we were going to govern better. We were going to get the decisions right. We weren't going to waste billions of dollars on pink batts. We weren't going to run school hall programs that were billions over budget. We weren't going to spend twice as much delivering a third as many computers as what Labor said. And, remember, Treasury costed some of these things and look how far they were out.

TONY JONES: Okay.

WARREN TRUSS: So why should you believe them now.

TONY JONES: Clive Palmer wants to come in on this.

CLIVE PALMER: Just a quick thing. Let's never forget that four months before the election the then prime minister - what was his name: Kevin Rudd - was 75 per cent of the polls and let's never forget that the Labor Party lost 16 seats in this election and that Tony Abbott made the biggest swing of any Opposition leader in the history of the Commonwealth. Let's never forget that fact, because that's the truth.

TONY JONES: All right. I don't think the Labor Party has forgotten that.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Just on the costings thing, I think it's really interesting that Warren talks about independent costing and how you can't trust Treasury to do it. For 12, almost 13 years, Treasury was just fine as far as you were concerned. I didn't hear you making those criticisms when you were in government. The second thing I want to say is those costings, I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination you can call them independent costings. They were adding up. They were two plus two equals four. They weren't testing any of the assumptions behind any of the policies you were proposing and you cannot do proper costings without testing the assumptions underlying those policies and, just incidentally, they were done by the Court families old accounting form. I don't know how anyone can call that independent costing.

WARREN TRUSS: No, what I say to you - what I say to you is that Treasury often get it wrong. They often get it wrong and we've got to therefore be prepared to test their calculations just as we test other people's.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: But I think the issue for the electorate during the campaign was you obviously thought they were going to get it wrong because you didn't want to have to fight that fight about why there was an $11 billion hole in your budget. You want to come out now and try and explain it as a miscalculation, a misreading, a misinterpretation of your policies but you weren't prepared to have that fight in the election campaign.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, and you're aware why.

TONY JONES: Okay. No, I'm...

WARREN TRUSS: Because there was a serious leak from Treasury; a leak of the documents which is still being investigated by the police and, who knows, may lead to charges.

TONY JONES: Okay.

WARREN TRUSS: So how can you trust that process?

TONY JONES: We did deal with this in previous programs and we have another question on a related subject from Frank Alvaro.

FRANK ALVARO: It's probably fair to assume that the Australian public now expects a degree of stability in the Federal Parliament. Mr Truss, what guarantee can the Coalition give that they will not simply become a wrecking crew in suits, determined to disrupt and frustrate good government with the aim of forcing a new election?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, our job in Opposition is to test the government, to ask serious questions, to point out the faults in the various policies it puts forward and also to offer alternative ideas. So we have a mandate to do that, as well, from the people and we will do that to the best of our ability. Now, if we are so successful at that that the people start asking questions about whether this government is any longer worth keeping then we haven't exceeded our authority, we've done our job.

TONY JONES: You...

WARREN TRUSS: And that will certainly be our task in the period ahead.

TONY JONES: You did have a fair old whack at the country independents who decided to go with the Gillard Government. I'm wondering was that wise, when you actually may need them in the future if you do want to form a government in the current format?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, we felt that they made an error of judgment in choosing to back the government. Frankly, the deal that they took will deliver far less for regional Australia than we had offered to the Australian people during the election campaign. There's a billion dollars there for education that won't any longer be available in regional areas. Extra funding for roads in regional area that won't be available. Of the $10 billion in this deal, $6 billion comes from the mining tax. It's going to be dribbled out over 10 years and won't even be available until 2015/16. So, in fact, there's not going to be a lot to show in the regions for the deal that's done. So we felt they could have done a better deal but when each issue comes forward we'll do our level best to persuade them that there is a better way, that some of the measures that are being proposed by the government could be done better and if we can suggest wise alternatives I hope that they will consider them on their merits.

TONY JONES: Let's go to Lenore Taylor, because you actually reported on this better deal offered by Tony Abbott. Give us some of the details.

LENORE TAYLOR: Well, what was interesting was that I discovered that Tony Abbott, as Warren would know, offered the independents a billion dollars a year, pretty much indefinitely, for regional infrastructure. That compared with 1.43, I think, billion in toto that was offered by Julia Gillard. So I think there's two things that are interesting about that. One is that the three country independents - they clearly made a decision based on self interest, but their self interest wasn't only calculated in terms of who offered them the biggest bag of money. They were looking for, as they said it, ways that the money was being distributed, clarity about where the money was coming from and I think they knew that if they accepted too much they would be hounded for being sort of pork barrelers and whatever else. The other thing I think is interesting about it is that Tony Abbott made so much during the election campaign of being the fellow who was going to pay back the debt and get the budget back into surplus bigger and sooner, and I think that's where the whole costings debate came in, because he wanted to prove the he could make good on those slogans and, yet, he was offering this extraordinary amount of money for regional infrastructure just like that to the three independents that he needed to form government.

TONY JONES: Warren Truss, first of all do you accept what's been said there? The calculation is a billion dollars a year in perpetuity? That obviously would be a very big deal to turn down.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, I wasn't referring specifically to those measures. I was talking about things that we had publicly put on the record during the election campaign. All of those were on...

TONY JONES: But what about the ones that you didn't put on the record? Because here we are, period of open government, new paradigm. How much money were you prepared to put up?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, we were prepared to do good things for regional Australia and the Nationals have had, for a long time, policies for substantial regional development programs. Some of them there were public commitments to during the election campaign and they were funded. We were able to go a little further in the latter discussions but we were also prepared to put on the table savings to counter those. So we would have still kept our capacity to balance the budget faster than Labor and we would have done that with properly balance programs.

LENORE TAYLOR: So can you tell us where the savings came from to make up for a billion dollars a year in regional infrastructure?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: From behind the back of the couch (indistinct)?

WARREN TRUSS: We had identified a whole range of savings which would more than cover the amounts that we were discussing.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've got a couple of people with their hands up here, so I'm going to hear from a couple of people here. First of all, this gentleman in the back row and then the one immediately in front.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Regardless of what both parties offered during this process with the independents, is the National Party like petrified that if the Labor and independents can deliver for rural Australia, unlike previous governments haven't, are you petrified your legitimacy as the country party could be completely undermined and what could that mean for the conservative side of politics in Australia?

WARREN TRUSS: No, I'm not petrified at all. In fact, let me remind you that the Nationals did very well in this last election. We had all of our sitting members received swings - substantial swings - on average six per cent to them. We won three extra seats. We've had our best election result since World War II. So that's been a very substantial vote of confidence in us as the party representing regional Australia and we're proud of that. We recognise that we have a responsibility to deliver to regional Australia and that we need to continue to do more to make sure that regional Australians recognise us for the contribution that we make. So it is Labor did disastrously in regional Australia. They lost votes right across the stream. In the independent seats they finished third in each of those votes. In fact, in the three rural independents that have been so much the focus of attention, in their electorates Labor polled eight per cent, 13 per cent, and 20 per cent.

TONY JONES: Okay. Warren Truss, just hang on.

WARREN TRUSS: County people had had enough of Labor in government and they let them know well and truly at the ballot box.

TONY JONES: All right. We have a question, it probably would have come later, in fact, but we have a question from Liz Thorp on this subject. Up the back there.

LIZ THORP: Mr Truss, given the three independents have achieved more for rural and regional Australian in 17 days that it seems the National Party has in 17 years, will you consider voting on issues that are good for regional Australia but may go against the city-centric views of the Liberal Party, such as climate change, water sharing, and the NBN, just to name a few?

WARREN TRUSS: Well, let me just firstly say to you that the Nationals have contributed mightily to regional Australia over many, many years. In Coalition we have delivered for regional Australia. We were the party that developed Auslink, the roads program; Roads to Recovery, that's built so many roads in country areas. We built the regional universities so that people now are able to get degrees in many regional communities. You know, we're the party that stood up for the agricultural sector with the Advancing Australia agriculture package. We helped farmers when they were in trouble in the dairy industry, in the sugar industry, fruit growing and others. We were there. It was the Nationals that negotiated the first free trade agreement with Japan and we were there on a whole...

TONY JONES: Can I just say that we had Bob Katter on this show last week. He regarded a whole series of those things as a betrayal of his rural electorate and, indeed, the tariffs in particular he said had caused an awful lot of farmers and rural industries to go to the wall.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, but he always would surely have acknowledged that if it were not for the $2 billion dairy assistance program, many dairy farmers would have been in much worse trouble than they were after dairy deregulation.

TONY JONES: DO you know, I'm not him but I suspect he wouldn't acknowledge that, to be honest.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, you may be correct.

TONY JONES: I'm going to go around and hear from the rest of the panel.

WARREN TRUSS: But I think fair minded observers would also acknowledge that the drought assistance and other measures that the Nationals put in place for regional Australia are important. The Black spots Program for telephones and television, both of which have been abolished by Labor.

TONY JONES: Okay. Okay.

WARREN TRUSS: All of those things suggest that the Nationals have delivered for regional Australia. There is much more that needs to be done. Regional Australians are entitled to a fair go and we're determined to make sure they get it.

TONY JONES: Okay, Sarah.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Is it Liz?

LIZ THORP: Yes.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I think that's a great question, because that was actually what I was trying to cut in before and say that if the Nationals really want to make the most out of this next three years for delivering for rural Australia, working themselves with everybody else to get the best outcomes, I think they should really start to think of what opportunities are there. You've got the Labor Party who have said, okay, yeah, we're going to make regional Australia more of a focus. They've just made a ministry out of it. You've got independents there who are going to make sure that happens. You've got the Greens who are out talking about climate change, biosecurity, access to rural education. There's actually a whole range of things that we could be working collaboratively with and I guess that's the question to the Nationals. Are you going to just join with Tony Abbott and be wreckers or actually work with the rest of us and get some good outcomes for rural and regional Australia?

TONY JONES: Right. No, I'll come to you on that. I just want to hear from rest of the panel first of all on these questions that we've been discussing. Clive Palmer?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, the fact of the matter is that the National Party or the Country Party before the National Party has been in more governments in this country than any other political party since Federation. That's a fact of matter and they've provided more support for communities across this country since Federation. No one can doubt that. That's the truth, and I don't think it's reasonable to say that Tony Abbott is a wrecker. I mean he's not in government. He's the leader of the Opposition who has got the biggest swing of any Opposition leader in the history of the Commonwealth. He's had the most support. And this is a first term government that's nearly been kicked out of office. They should be hanging their head in shame and considering how they should review their policies to get the support of the Australian people, you know.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, if Tony Abbott doesn't want to be a wrecker, he can work with the rest of us as well. You don't have to be wrecker.

CLIVE PALMER: Well, look, you know, how can Tony Abbott...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: We've actually been...

CLIVE PALMER: The poor guy hasn't done...

WARREN TRUSS: You said that he was. You said that he was.

CLIVE PALMER: You said he was a wrecker. You said he is a wrecker. What's he done? He stood because he's got better policies. What's he done? Nothing. He's done nothing.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I think there is an opportunity here for all sides of politics to actually look at the things that we do agree on and be constructive, not deconstructive; build, not wreck and actually get some good outcomes. And it's a challenge to everybody.

TONY JONES: Okay.

CLIVE PALMER: So are the Greens happy to come and sit across from the Nationals and the Liberal Party in Parliament and to work those things out? Are they prepared to stand up and to talk to those members and invite them out for discussion?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I just listed - I just listed a list of issues...

CLIVE PALMER: Are they?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: ...where I think we do actually have some common ground. Let's actually make it work.

CLIVE PALMER: Yeah, but are the Greens prepared to actually move across and talk to the National Party in the National Party party room and discuss it with them...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I was going to say, you know, some...

CLIVE PALMER: ...and, say, take them out to dinner and...

WARREN TRUSS: Well, you weren't there when we needed help for student allowances.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, we actually were.

TONY JONES: Okay, can I just interrupt here...

WARREN TRUSS: You weren't there.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: We were there.

TONY JONES: ...because we actually have a web question on this very...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: We worked quite well together on that.

TONY JONES: Just hang on, Sarah. We actually have a web question from Jonathan Davey in Paddington in Sydney on this very question: "Could you imagine any circumstances where the Greens, the Coalition and independents work together to pass legislation through the House of Reps and the Senate without Government support?" Warren Truss, can you imagine any?

WARREN TRUSS: I can't think of anything that readily comes to mind but I don't rule it out. You know, I don't rule it out. If there are areas where the Greens are prepared to support our views on issues and do that in a constructive way, well - no, we're in opposition - and we will work together.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, you know, Warren, one of your shining...

WARREN TRUSS: But, no, I won't...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: One of your shining members, Darren Chester from the seat of Gippsland, I've worked with him quite a lot over the issue of access to rural education and here are some key common elements there. So it's not all...

TONY JONES: But are you prepared to work separately to the government with the Coalition on Tony Abbott's parental leave scheme to try and get that legislated, because Bob Brown said last week that money bills wouldn't be counted in this kind of cooperation?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I think there's things that we can do collectively to ensure that we put pressure on the government to make their parental scheme more fair dinkum and that means making it six months, including superannuation. If that means the compromise is keep it at the minimum wage, well, that's something that we can negotiate.

TONY JONES: All right. We've got a few hands popping up here and I'd like the audience to get involved. Actually, we'll just take the gentleman at the back first, because he's had his hand up for a while.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I just say that at the time back in the past that Labor was actually siding with the Nationals at that time and now they've swapped over to the Liberals. So what happened there in the past? What happened to make them switch?

WARREN TRUSS: Well...

TONY JONES: I'll take that onboard. We'll come to that and we'll hear from this gentleman at the front, as well.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, I was just going to say he asked you if you were going to switch over for the paid parental leave. I mean, you're saying you want to change the government's policy. Are you saying that you will only work to change the government's policy and not side with the Nationals and Liberals?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I think this is the whole issue with the way the parliament now operates...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: ...and is that it is no winner takes all from any side.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So then you shouldn't have a problem siding with them for paid parental leave.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, we need to make sure...

CLIVE PALMER: You should vote with them.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: We need to make sure it can get supported through the budget for those types of measures.

LENORE TAYLOR: That's it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So would you?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: And you can't just introduce legislation that the government won't then factor into their budget. So it's about actually working together to ensure that we get better outcomes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But you're not saying you would work together with them. Would you work together?

CLIVE PALMER: She'd pretend she'd vote with them but she wouldn't really do it.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: No, that's not - no, that's...

CLIVE PALMER: She'd pretend it.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: That's not what we're saying.

TONY JONES: Okay, so you've made a good point. I'm going to hear from Warren Truss on this. Would the Nationals in particular want support...

CLIVE PALMER: Nationals for prime minister.

TONY JONES: ...to get the parental leave scheme through or are you, fact...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, the Nationals don't support it anyway.

TONY JONES: ...as with most of the Nationals, quite happy that that's fallen by the wayside.

WARREN TRUSS: Well, it's still Coalition policy and it's a Coalition policy. Everything is no doubt reviewed over the next couple of years but it's Coalition policy so that's where it is. I think that there could be occasions when we have similar views on issues. There are stark differences between the Nationals and the Greens. Stark differences. I can't imagine us every coming to agreement on the mining tax. I can't imagine us coming to agreement on a whole range of farm issues where the Greens seem to take a very antagonistic attitude towards modern farmers practices.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, in the Darling Downs we want to support the farmers and you want to support the coal miners. I must say it's probably something...

WARREN TRUSS: No. No.

TONY JONES: Okay.

WARREN TRUSS: We want to support the - the only reason why you're supporting the farmers on the Darling Downs is that you're against coal mining and we're for the farmers, as well.

CLIVE PALMER: What's wrong with coal mining?

WARREN TRUSS: But (indistinct) coal mining.

TONY JONES: All right. Hang on. Okay. All right, now, I've got three people who are talking a great deal. I'd like to hear from Tanya Plibersek and Lenore on the subjects we've been discussing. First of all, Tanya Plibersek, the government - would the government be comfortable with the Greens making different backroom legislative deals with the Coalition?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, I think one of the features that we'll see in the new parliament is more private members bills and more private members' business and that will be open to any of the minor parties, and certainly the Coalition parties, to be proposing those private members' bills. I would expect, as Sarah says, that there is common ground that parties will find aside from the Labor Party. I think the proposal that some people were floating that the Greens would back the Liberals paid parental leave scheme simply can't work, because you're talking about spending 10 times as much on paid parental leave as is currently budgeted for. We have legislation through the parliament now that will start on 1 January; money in the bank for Australian mums and dads from 1 January. To reopen that and to start fighting about whether we can find 10 times as much in the budget for it, I think would be incredibly counterproductive.

TONY JONES: Well, unless, of course, you did it as Tony Abbott suggested, as a tax on business that went for possibly 10 years.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well...

CLIVE PALMER: What's wrong with that?

TONY JONES: Well, Clive Palmer, would business be happy to accept a permanent tax so that you don't even have to worry about the government funding...

CLIVE PALMER: Well, no, hold on. I think you've got to be realistic. I mean, I pay my workers up at (indistinct) - we've got a thousand men and women working there and I contribute 11 per cent a year in superannuation, when I'm required to contribute nine per cent by law, and I think we all want Australians to have a good standard of living and Tony Abbott does too. That's why he's brought this scheme in, one that's realistic. We all want a higher standard of family life and we all want to appreciate the role that women play in society more than we do. And it's not a laughing matter, Tanya, it's a reality.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Can I say - look, it's fine. I expect that. The other thing that is really curious about paid parental leave is that we have Coalition members leaking to the newspapers day after day that they don't support this because it pays women on $150,000 a year a lot more than it pays stay at home mums or women on lower wages. It pays the boss 10 times - well, you know, five times more than it pays the secretary. So there is a lot of dissent within the Coalition. I think it would be unlikely that all of the Coalition members would vote on this, let alone getting support from the cross benchers.

CLIVE PALMER: But the question is if the Greens did and the Coalition did, that would bring down the government and I'd win the bet.

TONY JONES: Maybe not. Let's hear from Lenore.

LENORE TAYLOR: Well, I mean, I think it's really interesting how this whole parliament will work and not just for the reasons that we've been talking about. We've all been focussing on how Labor will get the votes of the three independents and the Greens, but the two main parties agree on a lot of things, and I was interested the other day - one of the Opposition front benchers was looking at a comment by Bob Brown reiterating Green policy against offshore processing of asylum seekers and this front bencher said, "See, look, already the alliance is descending into chaos." But last time I looked the Coalition supported offshore processing of asylum seekers. Now, at the moment Julia Gillard's policy is, you'd have to say, a bit kind of half formed, but should it come up to the point where it's a formed policy, I can't see why that couldn't pass with the support of the Coalition if the Coalition chose to play the new parliament that way and I think that will be a fascinating thing to look at, as well.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: And, Tony, can I just add to that? Lenore makes a very good point because Warren and Clive were saying earlier, "Who says Tony Abbott is a wrecker?" Well, that will be the test. When these policies come up where there is common ground and there are a number of areas where there is common ground between the Coalition and the Labor Party, will he take the opportunity to support those sensible policies or will he say, "It is more in my interests to create chaos? The more chaos there is the shorter time this government will last, the better for me." It will be a real test for Tony Abbott.

WARREN TRUSS: But if there's common ground there's no chaos.

TONY JONES: Okay.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, we'll see.

TONY JONES: I think that's a good point to draw a line under that discussion. You're watching Q&A. You're watching the new paradigm. This is the program that gives you the chance to ask the questions that you want answered. The next question comes from Todd Hillsley.

TODD HILLSLEY: Yes, Clive Palmer, the mining tax will boost the retirement savings of workers, lower business tax and also contribute to national infrastructure. With the main mining unions also supporting the tax and record numbers of mining magnates in the BRW's top 200 list this year, is your opposition to the mining tax just for your own self interest or not the country's or even the mining industry’s?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, my opposition is to the current mining tax is that it's one that was brought about without consultation with the Australian mining industry and by that I mean mining companies owned by Australians, not owned by people offshore. Julia Gillard consulted with the three largest mining companies: BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, all of them which are not Australian based or owned by Australian shareholders. So I think there needed to be, first of all, some consultation together. Few people could disagree with the idea of a profits based mining tax, as this mining tax is based, instead of a royalty regime, whereas companies that mine and export, regardless of making a profit, pay royalties to state government for the access to their minerals but the question is: at what level should it be set? And, you know, the mining royalties we pay at the moment in state governments is around about four to five per cent, but it's paid regardless of whether you make a profit or not. So the industry has been pushing for maybe a higher tax. Maybe something around 7 or 8 per cent that's related to how much profit we make and I think that's a much better outcome. But that consultation has never taken place. The Labor Party has never listened to the people. I was never invited or was some of my other colleagues invited to Canberra to discuss those things. So, as Bob Hawke said, we want a consensus.

TODD HILLSLEY: The main mining unions are actually supporting the tax, as well.

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I don't think that's right. Not their members. I know the people that work for me don't support the tax because they're concerned that they want more jobs and they want more investment and the tax doesn't necessarily bring revenue to the government if it threatens the sector and at the moment you've got a situation where the proposed tax is just on the coal mining and iron ore industries and not across the board on all our mining industries. One would say that's inequitable and unfair and the government should look across at all the sectors of mining if there's going to be a mining profits based tax. So...

TONY JONES: All right. Just hang on for one second, because we've actually go another question that brings us to some of the detail of this. It's from Barbara Clarke.

BARBARA CLARKE: I'd like to know what tax level or tax system that you think will be fair and equitable so that stakeholders and miners receive a healthy return on their investment but Australian society will be compensated for the depletion of natural resources, which are non-renewable?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I think everyone supports the payment to society generally for minerals that are mined from the country. That's the first thing I'd say, and that's happened for a long time in the payment of royalties to the states. Now, the states are all free to set the royalty levels for different minerals at what level they want to. The mining industry doesn't control that. But one of the disadvantages of that is that a number of mines that don't make a profit that are employing Australians are paying high royalties when they've got no profits to pay them. So it's a much more equitable situation if companies like mine, that make a lot of profit, are taxed at a higher rate than, say, the royalties are. Maybe double the rate to make up for the companies that don't make a profit yet still employ a lot of people. So if we have out taxation level at a lot higher for mining and for other industries than our trading partners, you find most of the investment will go to our training partners, so those taxes in the long term won't stand. It's just a matter of Treasury advice, I believe, in the long term to see that change. But certainly we could have a profits based tax based on a level which was more closer to royalties. The current proposed tax has been accepted by the large three miners for one reason only. It keeps small Australian mining companies, new entrants in major projects, out of the business because it means they can't get the return from mining minerals to employ more people and it leaves a monopoly based on overseas ownership with the major minors and it's incredible to think the Labor Party could support a system which keeps Australian minerals, Australian things in the hands of overseas companies. It's amazing. What they should be looking at is taking our minerals, downstream processing them more in Australia so our industries become more competitive so we don't export our minerals, we export downstream products and we create more employment here.

TONY JONES: Clive Palmer, can I interrupt you? You said you would accept a profits tax. The question is to what degree? I mean, I think you named a figure there. How much does that differ from the current super profits tax in terms of level?

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I think the Labor Party is looking at 20 per cent profit tax which would make us uncompetitive. If we had an eight per cent or seven per cent tax profit, which was sort of double the sort of current state royalty rates, that would be something to consider. But currently the royalties in all of Australia are owned by the states - the Crown - not by the Commonwealth, and this is also a grab for central taxation by the Commonwealth, so that's something the states have to consider independently.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Tanya Plibersek on this.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, I think it's really terrific to have Clive arguing for a resources rent tax. It's the first time I've actually heard him accept that a tax on the profits of mining companies is a good idea. I think that you have to take with a big grain of salt what he says about his companies being competitive or uncompetitive because when we first started talking about this tax he said he was going to give up exploration in South Australia and he didn't actually have any going on there. He said he was going to not...

CLIVE PALMER: That's not true.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: He said he was not going to proceed with several large projects. He can't name any of those projects. So it's good to have him accept the theory. That's a really good first start. It would be terrific if he was a bit more realistic about the impact it's going to have on his business.

TONY JONES: Just to bring you upon that. It is a point. I mean, when I very first - the first time I interviewed you on Lateline, you were against a profit tax...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah.

TONY JONES: ...from my recollection.

CLIVE PALMER: A 40 per cent profits tax, yeah.

TONY JONES: But not a profit tax at all, I think you said at that time.

CLIVE PALMER: At that stage, Tony, there was no details about a credit for royalties. It was like royalties and a profits tax which obviously...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, that's not right.

CLIVE PALMER: Well, at that stage I wasn't aware of that, okay. So let me say that. But, first of all, you know, I don't agree with a 40 per cent tax. I don't agree with a 20 per cent tax. All I'm saying is that I do with agree with a concept of taxing profits rather than taxing people and an activity.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Big step forward.

CLIVE PALMER: Yeah, that's all I'm saying. But I don't think the rate should be more than five or six or seven times that rate.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's hear from Warren Truss. Are you surprised to hear a very senior figure in the mining industry now talking in favour of a profits tax?

WARREN TRUSS: No, I've heard people talk about that sort of thing before. I don't agree, I might add, although Clive knows more about mining than me and I wouldn't attempt to suggest otherwise but actually I believe that royalties are a fair and reasonable way for the people of Australia to get some benefit from their minerals and, in fact, if coal is going to be, for instance, taken out of the ground, I think the Australian people are entitled to a royalty, whether the company is making a profit or not, because in reality the minerals are coming out of the ground. They're used. Whether they're being used to the profit of the miner or not I think is irrelevant. I think people should pay a royalty for the minerals that they take from the ground. The second point I make is that a fair share of that royalty should go back to the regions and that hasn't been happening in Australia until Western Australia introduced there scheme. New South Wales and Queensland and other mining rich states should do the same and that way the regions would get back something for the enormous wealth that they are creating for our nation.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: We're talking about putting six and a half billion dollars back into the regions from this and you don't support it. That's extraordinary.

WARREN TRUSS: No, but what you're talking about putting back is just a trickle. It is very, very little indeed and...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Six and a half billion dollars.

WARREN TRUSS: ...the biggest single project that you've promised to fund is actually roads around Perth. That's not the region. That is not the region.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. All right. All right. Let's hear from Lenore Taylor and then we've got a questioner down the front here.

LENORE TAYLOR: Well, I've got to say I agree with Clive on at least one point and that is that a backroom deal between a desperate new prime minister and three mining CEOs is a hell of a way to design a tax and this might be one area where this new parliament could do some good work because time is on its side. The tax doesn't come into play until the middle of 2012 so the whole process with the former BHP chairman Don Argus can proceed. Everyone can have their say. Clive can have his say about how he thinks it should work. The smaller miners can have their say and it could well be that we get a better tax out of it at the end. I mean, Clive will probably be less happy with the fact that a majority of the people in the lower house seem to support a tax that takes even more money than the one that Labor Party was proposing at the time of the election but all of that aside the facts will be assessed and we've got time to do it properly and in an open and transparent manner and I reckon that's a good thing.

TONY JONES: Okay, there's a gentleman down the front who has patiently had his hand up for a while.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If the mining tax is a tax on non-renewable and therefore items of a capital nature, shouldn't the money from that be quarantined only to capital items or debt reduction or asset building and not to recurrent expenditures, otherwise it's like selling your house to buy food and grog.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going to take that as a comment, because we've got another questions that's - no it's right on target with what you're talking about. Let's go to Ashley Borg and we'll hear from him, as well.

ASHLEY BORG: Everyone knows that mining doesn't last forever. Minerals are non-renewable resources. Don't we need a mining resource rent tax linked to a sovereign wealth fund so that we build a pool of financial resources for the Australian people that continues to produce benefits when the minerals are long gone?

TONY JONES: Okay, pick up the two points, Tanya Plibersek, and I mean they're basically making the same point. It is essentially this: why not put the money into some fund which is saved and then use the interest from that fund as they do in Norway where, for example, they have a $443 billion US fund, rather than spend it all on party political agendas?

TONY JONES: Well, they are because - the reason I say that, sorry, is because they're not agreed on by both sides. So the way you want to spend the money, the way others want to spend the money is rather different.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, Warren Truss and I both agree that more of the money that comes from digging up our natural resources should go to regional Australia. He just said that and that's what this money will go towards. It will go towards tax reductions for businesses. It will go towards tax reductions for individuals and simpler tax returns. It will go towards superannuation. Now, allowing bigger superannuation savings is arguably exactly what you're talking about. One of the reasons that we weathered the global financial crisis as well as we did is because we had significant domestic savings in the form of superannuation and so the increased super that we'll be able to collect because of these changes will be significant for the future.

TONY JONES: All right. Let's here from, first of all - actually, I'll come to you in a second, Clive, but Sarah Hanson-Young, because I think the Greens do support a sovereign wealth fund.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Yeah. The Greens took that to the election campaign. We believe that at least a percentage of what is collected needs to go into a sovereign fund so that we're actually investing for the future. The whole idea of ripping the minerals out, shipping them off as fast as we can and the difference between a royalty scheme and a profits scheme is that you're actually capitalising on the boom time and ensuring that when the money that you're earning from the boom time can actually be invested for the future. It's not just the day to day cost of the royalties and so whether it goes into infrastructure, you know, high speed rail, our education system, I think it's a good idea. How we manoeuvre the parliament through to get what it is at the end - I mean, obviously the 40 per cent tax is what the Greens supported - it doesn't look like we're going to have the numbers in the parliament to do that. We're going to have to work with the new government and the independents and hopefully the other parties in the parliament to actually get something that is going to be there for future generations. Not just for the next term of government, not just for the term after that, but for the future.

TONY JONES: Okay. Let's hear from Lenore on this, because you've done some homework on how much is actually left in the funds we do have.

LENORE TAYLOR: Yeah, well, exactly. I think a sovereign wealth fund is a great idea but we'd have to actually be able to trust that the politicians wouldn't go turn around and spend it and...

WARREN TRUSS: Hear, hear.

LENORE TAYLOR: ...the former Howard Government set up a couple of funds which the Rudd Government then turned into the three big nation building funds for health, education and infrastructure and they've basically cleaned them out. There's almost no money left in them. There's about 2.8 billion out of what was supposed to be 41 billion; was in fact about $22 billion in the end. They were meant to be funds where the capital stayed there and only the interest was spent. In fact, the capital is pretty much all gone and it's not only the Labor Party that's done it. The Coalition also dipped into those funds big time to fund its election policies. So I think a sovereign wealth fund is a great idea but we need to make sure that's a locked box that they can't get their hands on.

TONY JONES: Okay, Clive Palmer? Can I put it to you like this: would you feel more comfortable about paying a larger percentage of your profits in tax if it went into a sovereign wealth fund?

CLIVE PALMER: I'd feel more comfortable if the Labor Party didn't misrepresent what they were going to do with the money because first of all I pay superannuation as a business for my workers. I contribute 11 per cent of their salary in superannuation. It doesn't come from the government. So I still can't work out how me paying a higher taxation to the government will provide my workers with greater superannuation. If the government wants greater superannuation it can just legislate it straight away and say we should be paying 12, 13 to 14 per cent and we should be doing it. I pay two per cent more than I have to and I'd encourage other business to do the same because they should care about the workforces and their long term retirement in Australia. And, certainly, you know, this is like deja vu, talking about the sovereign tax. This is like going back to Peter Costello days when he was setting up the sovereign wealth tax before it was - the piggy bank was raided by Kevin Rudd and his band of thieves, you know. This is what it's like now, you know. We had a sovereign wealth fund. It was there. It was operating. It was for the benefit of all Australians. A lot of people in the last election voted against it - voted against the Labor Party because they want that money back and they want it accounted for for their children and their grandchildren. We should have one in the future.

TONY JONES: Okay. You should be able to respond to that.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, when superannuation is paid to employees rather than wages, there is a tax implication of that and that's what the costing is in terms of the money that's been set aside. I just - I mean I'm not even going to go into Peter Costello the hero and the Labor Party band of thieves. I just, you know - thanks, Clive. Great contribution.

WARREN TRUSS: I think a sovereign wealth fund...

TONY JONES: Okay.

WARREN TRUSS: ...is a fantastic idea. That's why we did the future fund. I agree entirely that a way has got to be found to make sure that that can eventually be used for its intended purpose. We are an aging population and so we're going to have greater responsibilities in future generations to care for people, their health needs, their retirement needs and that's why we need to be putting money aside in good times for the future. We did it in government. We would have done it again and I hope we'll get an opportunity.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: But, Warren...

TONY JONES: Okay, no, we've got very little time. We're going to go to one last quick question. It comes from Matthew Noble.

MATTHEW NOBLE: This was a campaign where we saw a huge swing against Labor after what has been described by pollster Rod Cameron as “the worst federal campaign” he has ever seen. My question is to Tanya: without blaming the Opposition or any former leadership, what have you learnt from the Australian public about your own failings as a party this election cycle?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Thank you, and it is a good question because you can imagine there is quite a lot of soul searching going on. I think there were a number of areas where we didn't explain our policies well enough and there are a number of areas where we didn't claim our wins well enough. I mean Australia weathered the global financial crisis better than any other developed country. We've got half the unemployment that they've got in Europe or the United States. We've got lower inflation. We've got, really, an economy that's the envy of the world and...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hear, hear.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Thank you. And a lot of people have said, since the election, you don't feel the bullet you dodged so I don't think we claimed credit for some of our successes nearly as well as we might have and there was some areas where I think our message wasn't as clear as it should have been and we need to do much, much better on that.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry we have, as usual - it always happens to us. We've run out of time. Please thank our panellists: Sarah Hanson-Young, Clive Palmer, Tanya Plibersek, Warren Truss and Lenore Taylor. Okay. There is still plenty to say about how our new political paradigm will work so next week we'll be back with the Shadow Minister and manager of Opposition business Christopher Pyne; the ethicist and Twitterer Leslie Cannold; and the nice one from the Chaser, Craig Reucassel.

And way back before the longest election we launched the Q&A Get Enrolled Video Competition. Well, we've already shown one of the winners, Register and Vote by self-described legendary Nimbin hippy activists and songwriters Mookx and Peej. We won't be asking what they're going to spend their winnings on. Tonight we'll go out with another winner, Erica Brien who pitched her video, Pick Up, at a younger demographic. Go to our website and see the other entries while you're there and make sure you're enrolled because our next election may just be sooner than you think. Good night.

A week after Labor formed government with the independents, Q&A discussed the new political paradigm. Robert Johnson opened the show with a question about the longevity of the new government and said bookies were predicting an election before 31st December 2011. Tanya Plibersek and Sarah Hanson-Young refuted the prediction while Clive Palmer and Warren Truss thought it was accurate. Bill Kriketos asked Tanya why Julia Gillard didn’t stand down given Labor won fewer seats than the coalition and received a lower primary vote. Brad Harvey then asked what laws had been broken to render the minority government illegitimate, as it was characterised by its political opponents.

Frank Alvaro sparked a discussion about voting for other parties’ policies with a question about whether the coalition will work with the government or simply be a “wrecking crew in suits”. And Jonathan Davey asked if the panellists could imagine a situation where the Greens, coalition and independents all worked together. Liz Thorpe questioned the legitimacy of the National Party given the recent achievements of the three independents for rural Australia. Warren responded by listing a raft of rural measures the National Party had achieved when they were in government.

Two questions on the mining tax from Todd Hillsley and Barbara Clarke saw Clive Palmer concede for the first time that there was a need for a resources rent tax. Ashley Borg then asked whether the Government should be linking the mining tax to a sovereign wealth fund. The show ended with a question from Matthew Nobel who asked Tanya what Labor had learnt from their near defeat. She said that they would need to sell their policies better in the future.

Tanya Plibersek is the Member for Sydney, a seat which covers the CBD and several inner suburbs of Australia’s biggest city. Formerly the Minister for Housing and the Status of Women, she has been appointed the Minister for Human Services and Social Inclusion in Julia Gillard's re-elected government.

Tanya is the daughter of migrants from Slovenia and grew up in Sydney’s south. Her father, Joseph, came to Australia in the 1950s and worked on the Snowy River hydro-electric scheme. She has degrees in communications and politics and public policy and entered Parliament in 1998. As an MP she has concentrated on issues of concern to her electorate, including homelessness, young people, child care, work and family and gay rights.

She was made a front-bencher in 2004 and held a range of shadow portfolios in such areas as family and community, early childhood education, housing, youth and women. She was sworn in as a Minister on December 3, 2007 – the day after her 38th birthday.

She is married to Michael Coutts-Trotter, Director-General of Education in NSW. They have two children, Anna and Joe, and live in the Sydney suburb of Rosebery.

Warren Truss has been the Leader of the National Party since 2007. He entered parliament in 1990 and represents the Queensland electorate of Wide Bay. Warren lives and has his electorate office in the regional centre of Maryborough.

Warren held several ministries during the Howard years, including Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Transport and Regional Services and Trade.

Warren has a farming background and is the third generation of farmers from the Kingaroy district within the Wide Bay electorate.

Prior to entering parliament he was a member of the Kingaroy Shire Council for over 20 years. In this time he held several key local government positions in relation to tourism and agriculture.

Clive Palmer, at last count, was fifth on the Australian rich list with a personal fortune estimated at up to $6 billion. A mining entrepreneur and a staunch supporter of the National Party in Queensland, Clive is one of the most colourful characters in Australian business circles and is renowned as being always willing to speak his mind.

Clive was born in Victoria but now lives on the Gold Coast in Queensland. He is widowed with two children. Now 56, he originally retired at the age of 29 after making a fortune in the 1980s Gold Coast property boom. In the later 80s he started taking an interest in mining exploration in WA and his principal mining company, Mineralogy, secured access to 160 billion tonnes of iron ore reserves in the Pilbara region.

Clive is a life member of the Queensland National Party (now the LNP) and was a strong supporter of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s ‘Joh for PM’ campaign in 1987. He is known to be a big financial supporter of conservative political parties but has friendships and contacts across the political spectrum. He is a keen soccer follower and owns Gold Coast United FC.

When Sarah Hanson-Young was elected to the Senate at the 2007 election, she achieved three significant milestones: she was the first Greens Senator to be elected in South Australia, the youngest person ever elected to the Senate and the youngest woman ever elected to the Federal Parliament. She is now regarded as a rising star in the Greens Party, a leading member of the new Greens generation who will eventually take over from such veterans as Bob Brown and Christine Milne.

With the Greens achieving a stunning result in the federal election, giving them a House of Representatives seat and a Senator in each State, the party will hold the balance of power in the new Senate an. As one of the Party’s most capable and high-profile younger representatives, Sarah is expected to have a significant role on the political debate.

Sarah was born in Melbourne in 1981 and grew up near Orbost in East Gippsland. She attended the University of Adelaide where she studied social science and was active in student politics, becoming president of the Students’ Association. She has a background of activism and community campaigning in such areas as the environment, human rights and issues involving youth and women, and has been a committed advocate for Amnesty International.

She and her husband Zane Young (whom she met as a teenager and who persuaded her to move to Adelaide from Melbourne) live in the inner suburbs of Adelaide and have an infant daughter, Kora.

Lenore Taylor is an award-winning political journalist who has covered federal politics for twenty-two years. She is now national affairs correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and a regular commentator on radio and television, including the ABC's Insiders program. Her first book, Shitstorm, co-authored with David Uren, was published by Melbourne University Press in July. Sub-titled Inside Labor's Darkest Days, it tells the inside story of the Government's attempts to combat the global financial crisis.

Lenore grew up in Brisbane and graduated in Arts with a politics major from the University of Queensland. She began work as a journalist with The Canberra Times in 1987 and worked in the Old Parliament House press gallery for a year before the Parliament moved to its new premises. She has worked in the press gallery ever since, other than a stint in London as a foreign correspondent. Lenore and her husband, writer and journalist Paul Daley, live in Canberra and have two children.